innocent until proven guilty?

Go to page

Administrator

yes they have and until one of the false accusers get heavily fined and spends some time in prison..there is nothing stopping them
from doing it to anyone they want revenge on
as long as the dem dont take the mid-terms he just might get a 3rd picki didnt word my respose to the last one rightView attachment 31128

Administrator

‘She deserves to be heard’ was the Left’s war cry before the GOP started offering avenues to tell her story. Then, it was “oh, how dare you bully her into telling her story.’ It’s insanely transparent. The playbook is an open secret. Delay, delay, and delay some more. When things started to buckle, another allegation—Ramirez—dropped to further gum up the works. And again, no one can recollect any of these women’s allegations. Ford can’t remember how this high school party came about, how she got there, or who hosted it. Due to the lack of evidence, they run a second blitz: have the FBI look into this. For what—there’s no federal crime here. The Democrats are trying to dragoon an executive agency to do their dirty work. Yeah, says the party that thinks the Trump White House is fraying the institutional integrity of the nation.

Democrats are licking their lips at the thought of the destruction of a man’s life because they don’t agree with his legal opinions, saying that he’s not afforded due process of law, that the burden is on him, and in one case, suggest that his legal views might make him guilty of sexual assault. It’s unfathomable. Only Democrats—cough* Keith Ellison cough* cough*--are afforded the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Due process of law is not and cannot be applied to conservatives. It’s wrong. Democrats are always wrong, but they’re united.

The Democrats have launched a coordinated assault that targets Kavanaugh, our values, and institutions by blithely ignoring due process and faults in these allegations that very well could be total and utter nonsense. You don’t get to lower the standards for evidence just because you hate someone. That’s the mind of a two-year-old. If the GOP caves, baseless accusations can be used to kill anyone’s nomination. Anyone can make these things up—and yes, while the Me Too moment is new—it’s not as if people have lost their ability to lie. Politically, Republicans will undercut one of the main reasons why Republicans showed up at the polls for Trump in 2016: judicial appointments. Many skeptical Republicans knew about Trump’s shortfalls and deviation from GOP policy orthodoxy, but McConnell held the line in blocking Garland and Trump picking a successor to the late Antonin Scalia was obviously the better choice than Hillary. Screwing this Supreme Court fight up is one way to increase chances that the Democrats totally dominate the 2018 midterms. If a party cannot withstand the pressure that’s build upon hot air, unsubstantiated gossip, and social media losers—what good are you?

... we are at war with the Democrats. We should adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to this because the Left already has. Decency and civility will never be rewarded in this scenario. The media won’t give you brownie points. Set the tempo, get out there and fight, and ignore what CNN, MSNBC, and other liberal trash outlets whose sole purpose is to keep liberals’ blood pressure low say about the matter. Trump supporters and Republicans know the attacks against the Trump White House are nonsense, as are these allegations. Keeping the base happy is necessary to any election. The GOP is flirting with disaster to think like moderates in this fight. If not for Kavanaugh, fight for the rule of law and due process that’s also being brutalized and trashed by this smear campaign. The GOP has the ability to end all of this nonsense. Hold the damn vote. Yes, Democrats might try and impeach Kavanaugh if he’s confirmed and they retake Congress this cycle. That’s a battle for another time if that happens. Right now, fight for this man with everything you got. Stand behind Brett. So far, Mitch and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are trying to set battle lines. Grassley has already nixed the idea of summoning the FBI, which they can't really do, to investigate these claims. It's a start, but we need to get rolling on the vote and getting our people in line.

Administrator

oh yes, a college woman who decided to spend her summer with high school boys ... and THEN she went to TEN parties where guys were lined up to gang rape drunk and drugged girls ... and THEN she didn't tell anybody, leading one to believe that either she was okay with girls getting gang raped, or she's lying ... you decide!

it was definitely fake news..not one other outlet carried it because they could NOT BACK UP THE SOURCE
thats my point..gossip rags i wouldnt wipe my ass with..even cnn did not cover it..if you had a clue about what is going on over here
first hand then maybe i would listen to your opinions

as far as cosby goes there was a ton of evidence against him and completely diffrent from 3 women who even their so called witnesses sayit never happened..use the brain you were given

one has nothing to do with the other, one is a Hollywood spoiled brat, and the other is a well established D.C. circuit judge who's been on that bench for 12 years, has already been through SIX background checks that never found a hint of any of this, and has already been through several confirmation hearings where NONE of this ever came up
you're not going to hear any testimony from woman number 2, she's refused
and if you believe a woman who says she went to 10 parties where women were being gang raped and never reported it to anybody, never stepped in to save another woman, never warned anybody to not go to these parties, who says in her first or second year of college, she chose to go to high school parties, then I'm really wasting my breath, because I can assure you, as a woman, that NO college woman would ever go hang out with high schoolers half an hour away 10 times ... and IF she did see this happening and did nothing about it, she's a sorry low life!
now word has it there's a man who has contacted the Senate saying he's the man in Ms. Ford's story, they've interviewed him twice
the Democrats were SO concerned with the TRUTH, that they sat on a serious allegation for 6 weeks!

Jokeroo Enthusiast

Senior Member

one has nothing to do with the other, one is a Hollywood spoiled brat, and the other is a well established D.C. circuit judge who's been on that bench for 12 years, has already been through SIX background checks that never found a hint of any of this, and has already been through several confirmation hearings where NONE of this ever came up
you're not going to hear any testimony from woman number 2, she's refused
and if you believe a woman who says she went to 10 parties where women were being gang raped and never reported it to anybody, never stepped in to save another woman, never warned anybody to not go to these parties, who says in her first or second year of college, she chose to go to high school parties, then I'm really wasting my breath, because I can assure you, as a woman, that NO college woman would ever go hang out with high schoolers half an hour away 10 times ... and IF she did see this happening and did nothing about it, she's a sorry low life!
now word has it there's a man who has contacted the Senate saying he's the man in Ms. Ford's story, they've interviewed him twice
the Democrats were SO concerned with the TRUTH, that they sat on a serious allegation for 6 weeks!

Senior Member

it was definitely fake news..not one other outlet carried it because they could NOT BACK UP THE SOURCE
thats my point..gossip rags i wouldnt wipe my ass with..even cnn did not cover it..if you had a clue about what is going on over here
first hand then maybe i would listen to your opinions

as far as cosby goes there was a ton of evidence against him and completely diffrent from 3 women who even their so called witnesses sayit never happened..use the brain you were given

Jokeroo Enthusiast

There are multiple red flags with the newest allegations of sexual misconduct that were made on Wednesday against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Julie Swetnick, represented by hyper-partisan Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti, claims that she attended parties in the early 1980s where she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes.

Swetnick’s allegations come after Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez both made allegations against Kavanaugh just days before the Senate was scheduled to confirm him to the Supreme Court.
Here is a brief review of the allegations made by each of the three women and relevant background information:

Ford claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a high school party. She does not remember when or where it happened; she has no evidence; she has no witnesses, and everyone she claims was at the party has denied having any memory of such a party. Ford is a registered Democrat, a left-wing activist, and is being represented by Democratic lawyers, and is being advised by a Democratic operative who was recorded over the summer saying that she was going to work to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation.

Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a college party, putting his penis in her face. She has no witnesses; she has no evidence, and she admits that she was so drunk during the incident that she was on the ground in a “foggy” state, “slurring” her words. Ramirez contacted former classmates and told them she wasn’t even sure Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself to her. Ramirez only felt confident about her memories after she spent six days talking it over with her Democratic lawyer. Ramirez is a registered Democrat and an admitted social justice warrior.

Swetnick claims that as an adult in college, she attended high school parties with minors where alcohol was being consumed and where gang rapes were taking place. Not only did she never report this to the authorities, she repeatedly went back to the parties where these things were taking place. She does not claim that Kavanaugh ever assaulted her, but claims she witnessed him participating in gang rapes, but has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her claims.

Here are the serious problems with the allegations made by each of the three women against Kavanaugh:
1. The allegations would make Kavanaugh a serial sexual abuser, yet none of this type of alleged behavior showed up in the multiple FBI background checks into him.
If the allegations against Kavanaugh are true, that would mean that he is a serial sexual abuser — a compulsive behavior that would likely persist throughout his life. If Kavanaugh were a serial sexual abuser, there would likely be victims from his law school days, his time in the Bush administration, and from his time serving as a federal judge — yet not a single person has stepped forward from any of these periods and made allegations. Why?
Multiple sources told The Daily Wire that the FBI often looks into the full background of federal judicial nominees, which includes their high school years. One of the sources told The Daily Wire they have received multiple phone calls about judicial nominees they went to high school or middle school with and wanted to know any relevant information from those years in the nominee’s life.
Kavanaugh went through multiple FBI background checks for his appointments to the White House Counsel’s Office and his appointment as the Assistant and Staff Secretary to President Bush.
Democrats fought hard against Kavanaugh being confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 2003, yet no allegations even remotely close to this ever came out. The Washington Post reports that “Democrats held up the confirmation because of Kavanaugh’s work in the White House and on the Starr report.”
Kavanaugh also underwent another rigorous FBI background check when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003, yet no allegations like this ever came out.
2. The concrete contemporary details provided in Julie Swetnick’s declaration are details that have been previously reported.
The aspects of Swetnick’s declaration that are considered solid were already reported on days before she came forward with her allegations.
For example, her declaration says, “I have been told by other women that this conduct also occurred during the Summer months in Ocean City, Maryland on numerous occasions. I also witnessed such conduct on one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during ‘Beach Week.'”
Reports from a week ago already detailed “Beach Week” taking place in Ocean City, Maryland, and it was already widely known that Kavanaugh drank in high school since the legal age in Washington at the time was 18 years old.
3. As an adult, why would Julie Swetnick repeatedly go to high school parties with minors where gang-rape was taking place? Why did she not protect the minors at the party by reporting the drug-induced gang-rapes to the police?
“Where are the witnesses?” Charles C.W. Cooke asks at National Review. “The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?”

Erick Erickson✔@EWErickson
To review the Avenatti claim: a woman claims that when she was a college aged adult (graduated high school in 1980), she went to high school parties where high school girls were drugged and raped and she, as the adult present, did nothing but avoid the punch.1:47 PM - Sep 26, 2018​

Kavanaugh says that he has never met Swetnick, who claims that she met him and his friend Mark Judge in 1980 or 1981.
Female friends of Kavanaugh’s, who knew him in high school, have already come out and defended him against this accusation by noting that they never associated with anyone who attended Swetnick’s high school:

Furthermore, the White House released a letter from over 60 men and women who knew Kavanaugh during his high school years who say the charges against him are totally false:

Mark Knoller✔@markknoller
WH releases letter to Senate Judiciary Committee from over 60 men and women who say they knew Brett Kavanaugh during his high school years and "never witnessed any behavior that even approaches what is described" in the new allegation against him. They call it "reprehensible."4:41 PM - Sep 26, 2018​

4. The New York Times could not corroborate any of Swetnick’s claims and Avenatti refused to allow the publication to interview her. Why?​

The Times reports: “None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.”
If these allegations were true, there should be no shortage of witnesses, yet no one has come forward or confirmed any of Swetnick’s salacious claims.
Men drugging women and gang raping them at multiple parties are serious crimes. Why have no police reports ever surfaced documenting these allegations? Where are the other victims?

5. Regarding the allegations made by Ramirez, neither The New Yorker nor The New York Times could find a single witness who could corroborate any of her claims.
The New Yorker reported:
The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
The New York Times reported:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.
6. A woman who said she used to be best friends with Ramirez said that Ramirez never told her about the incident and initially told The New Yorker that Ramirez’s accusations against Kavanaugh could be politically motivated.
“The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, ‘This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening,'” the woman told The New Yorker. “She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their ‘larger social circle.’ In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.”
7. People who knew Ramirez after she graduated from Yale told The New Yorker that she never mentioned the alleged incident until Kavanaugh’s nomination was pending.
More than 1,500 words into The New Yorker’s article, the report states:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.
8. Regarding the accusations made by Ford, her therapist’s notes conflict with her current account of the alleged incident.
The Daily Wire previously reported:
According to her therapist’s notes, Ford told her therapist in 2012 that there were four boys in the room. Now she claims there were only two boys in the room and claims that there were three boys at the party and one girl. She also never told the therapist Kavanaugh’s name.
The fact that her memory appears to have changed this much in only a few years is significant — but not as significant as the fact that all four people who Ford claims were at the party have all denied any recollection of attending the party described by Ford.
9. Ford’s family doesn’t appear to back up her claims, and her timeline also is off.
“Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either,” Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post. “Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.”
Sperry also caught another glaring inconsistency with Ford’s claims, writing: “In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.”

Jokeroo Enthusiast

First off because the Australian government is run by the Liberal Party you assumed they were Bolshevik Lefties, no they are the Right Wing of our democratic system.

Then you couldn’t find information about the second complainant who accused Kavanaugh of sexually inappropriate action.

So like all people who don’t prepare for an exam, you’ve been shown up as a failure in this discussion.

I prefer blind justice to a court room stacked with left or right wing approval.

bla bla bla...this is not about your government...i havent gave a second thought to your government since we declared the queen null and void
decades ago... if australia is even still under the monarch rule

your sydney morning herald is just a hate Trump rag..i have read the reporting and there is not a speck of truth to their coverage
which is why they carried the report given to the new yorker..no other north american media covered it other than the gossip outlets because they could not find reliable sources to back up her claims...but dont let the facts get in your way

this is not about justice..it is all about the left obstructing an elected President...Kavanaugh is more than qualified to follow the law and constitution
without a political bias

if knowing the facts and understanding them then yes i am a proud failure..so there is no reason for you to continue to reply to me
and i dont appreciate you attacking me on a personal level..i only attacked your sources
i hear facebook calling you where you can get away with spreading the BS of the liberal mentality

Jokeroo Enthusiast

Former Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon gave a revealing interview to The New York Times Wednesday, outlining activists’ plan to scuttle Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and keep the Supreme Court seat vacant — and “out of Trump’s hands” — until 2020.
Fallon now headlines a group called “Demand Justice,” which, among other legislative priorities, is seeking revenge for the Senate’s treatment of former President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their plan, Fallon says, is to make sure President Donald Trump is similarly deprived of a SCOTUS pick, and they’ll do what they have to in order to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

“If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there,” Fallon explains.
The second part of Fallon’s genius plan comes in November: “If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his short list.”
So, step one, boot Kavanaugh. Step two, win the Senate. The plan only finishes if, in step three, the Democrats retake the White House, but that’s the most speculative step.

Senior Member

First off because the Australian government is run by the Liberal Party you assumed they were Bolshevik Lefties, no they are the Right Wing of our democratic system.

Then you couldn’t find information about the second complainant who accused Kavanaugh of sexually inappropriate action.

So like all people who don’t prepare for an exam, you’ve been shown up as a failure in this discussion.

I prefer blind justice to a court room stacked with left or right wing approval.

bla bla bla...this is not about your government...i havent gave a second thought to your government since we declared the queen null and void
decades ago... if australia is even still under the monarch rule

your sydney morning herald is just a hate Trump rag..i have read the reporting and there is not a speck of truth to their coverage
which is why they carried the report given to the new yorker..no other north american media covered it other than the gossip outlets because they could not find reliable sources to back up her claims...but dont let the facts get in your way

this is not about justice..it is all about the left obstructing an elected President...Kavanaugh is more than qualified to follow the law and constitution
without a political bias

if knowing the facts and understanding them then yes i am a proud failure..so there is no reason for you to continue to reply to me
and i dont appreciate you attacking me on a personal level..i only attacked your sources
i hear facebook calling you where you can get away with spreading the BS of the liberal mentality

Kavanaugh is under investigation for drugging and sexually interfering with his victims.

The newspaper article I posted made no such judgement, you should go read it to improve your knowledge on this trial.

Believe it or not, Canada is still part of the Commonwealth. Australia is no way governed by the Queen. England is not governed by the Queen, you should really do fact checks before making a fool of yourself.

Senior Member

Former Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon gave a revealing interview to The New York Times Wednesday, outlining activists’ plan to scuttle Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and keep the Supreme Court seat vacant — and “out of Trump’s hands” — until 2020.
Fallon now headlines a group called “Demand Justice,” which, among other legislative priorities, is seeking revenge for the Senate’s treatment of former President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their plan, Fallon says, is to make sure President Donald Trump is similarly deprived of a SCOTUS pick, and they’ll do what they have to in order to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

“If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there,” Fallon explains.
The second part of Fallon’s genius plan comes in November: “If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his short list.”
So, step one, boot Kavanaugh. Step two, win the Senate. The plan only finishes if, in step three, the Democrats retake the White House, but that’s the most speculative step.